I don't mean to be harsh, but I completely disagree with the concept of "any camera in the hands of a pro is a professional camera" reasoning.

Dave, please read my post above -- I said a camera that satisfies the needs of a professional photographer. I didn't say "any camera is for all purposes in hands of a professional".

So for different needs one needs different approaches, obviously. But thinking "bigger is better" doesn't cut it really. Super fast AF, big lenses, bulk, etc. doesn't mean anything. It all depends what's the outcome, for what exact purpose people use their cameras. And many good photographers don't want, in the end, anyone to see what they've used to achieve something, because they understand their skill is what people should be focused on, not what camera they've used.

But camera posers love that approach, where they can brag around what equipment they've used. And on that wave surfs the rest of the market, who foolishly believes that it's enough to have very expensive camera to take great pics. Usually their work is just a soul-less cr*p, no matter how little iSO noise it might have.

You're still talking about TWO issues, and confusing them as one. There are professional photographers and there is professional grade equipment.
Both
DO exist. The fact that not all professional photographers "need" the highest tier equipment to do their particular type of photography does not mean that professional grade equipment is nothing more than marketing catch phrasing designed to rope in the "poseurs" you so detest.

I'll use my favorite example of it's time, the Pentax LX. Would you like to point out all the OTHER "professional" Pentax equipment that offered the same extensive range of tools?! It doesn't exist. Only the LX offered interchangeable finders, DC power supply, bulk film backs, data backs, along with winders, motor drives, a vast array of interchangeable focusing screens, dust and weather sealing, battery-free functionality, titanium shutter, etc. etc. Others may have offered SOME of these tools, but none offered close to the range included in the LX system. NO, that doesn't mean anyone who used it "became" a better photographer, but it most certainly WAS a "professional grade" camera system offering all of the tools a professional could ever fathom to need, tools not offered in other Pentax camera systems (before OR since).

I take it from your arguments that you agree with Ken Rockwell's "Your camera doesn't matter" rant, in which he espouses a similar snobbish attitude about the "art" rising above the importance of the equipment used to create it, to which I'll respond by referring you to the very well put rebuttal on the Luminous Landscape entitled "Your camera
does
matter." The grade of equipment used says nothing about the
talent
of the photographer, but the equipment is most certainly NOT meaningless.